arisuchan    [ tech / cult / art ]   [ λ / Δ ]   [ psy ]   [ ru ]   [ random ]   [ meta ]   [ all ]    info / stickers     temporarily disabledtemporarily disabled

/z/ - zaibatsu — finance and economics

business. markets. international relations. geopolitics. sociology.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment

formatting options

File
Password (For file deletion.)

Help me fix this shit. https://archive.arisuchan.jp/q/res/2703.html#2703

Kalyx ######


File: 1509490210995.jpg (44.61 KB, 500x649, 4bd1ed441409c6f57f49117590….jpg)

 No.319

Is there a tomorrow for people who don't want to be lumped up in some premade identity package?

>tfw internet inquisitive snowflake activists want you to praise the mainstream news under accusation of un-patriotism even though you don't give a fuck about their ribbons

>tfw everyone else seem to be a bunch of conspiracy believers "the media is part of the plot they're going to take away our flags!!11!1!"

I'm not an anarchist, but I don't see the relation between the need for social solidarity and praising the flag, the media and state morality, the marching troops, applaud grandiose politician bullsoykafting, this is an exercise of vanity and soykafty identity politics. What about freedom? What about that mocking tone I learned from burgers and non-burgers on the chans? What about the realization of being an individual in a connected global world? What about using capital and personal knowledge to be an impulsive force, to make a change, not jumping on the last hashtag to make a holier-than-thou safe statement on Facebook? (I can't close Facebook yet but I don't even read it anymore since the amount of eyerolling it gives me)
I'm not even sure that internet freedom of being is still a thing since 2014 and the profusion of aspie alt-larpers and their opposites. You're forced to adopt the identity of whoever you're talking to now or you're presumed to be part of the undefinable bogeyman identity, be they "cultural marxists", "tankies", or whatever.
I can't stand people anymore. I don't even feel like I'm interacting with people, but just instances of identity circles. I only feel at home when I'm on the fringe of the internet now, or talking to a very select few friends. But even then most of them chicken out when confronted to the occasion of saying in the open what they spout in private. It feels good to concentrate on learning new things and try to make yourself better than listening to the news. Unless you're reading academical work, politics aren't "smarter" than celebrity trivia, if anything, they are worse because the media tries to make you project into your favorite politician/"brave journalist".

I'm doing freelance crap right now and I'm going to continue as long as I can. I will take steps to get as mobile and independent as I can, but does it even matter if you're alone. I wonder how it would be possible to convince the minority who feels out of place and which is easily seduced by conspiracy theories that globalism is more their only weapon than it is a threat.

 No.320

Stop reading news and interacting with normal people.
I decided to do this 10 years ago and never had a second thought.
You should try too.

 No.321

>>320
I stopped reading the news 6 months ago. I guess getting away from normal people is the second step. I already pass as cold anyway.

 No.322

File: 1509513788126.jpg (43.71 KB, 600x592, spookbuster.jpg)

>>319
>I don't even feel like I'm interacting with people, but just instances of identity circles.
Your post captures a very innate human trait: to label groups of things and wish to be labeled positively.
There's something unique about the internet. Anyone can post, which can appeal to a person's interests. A post that appeals to many forms a group of a single interest. But ideologies are sets of many interests that often intersect. When many people of a similar interest set post at the same time, the net result from volume, post voting, search list priority from page views, and other media digest methods boils the opinions into what appears to be a single ideology. The illusion of an ideological group is very easy to latch onto due to the human nature of labels.
I'm no egoist, but I'd call that a spook. Happy Halloween. Or maybe I am because I'm taking an idea from that ideology? I digress.
Ideologies tend to be incompatible with each other, which leads to divisive discourse among people who disagree, maybe over a single interest.
Was this different before the internet? Probably not. In recent years, has the internet and media proliferated the worldview of boxing people into ideologies, and boxing yourself into an ideology? I cannot say, but it sure feels like it.

 No.323

>>320
I like your style

>>319
You're pissing me off. There's always place for space monkeys, although why would you want to be one? I assume you suggest you want to be one, but lack the ability to even stand your ground when talking to people on social media, and instead cloak yourself in whatever identity they desire to be echo chambered in. You're part of the problem you're complaining about.

 No.324

>>323
Next time you should read further than the title.

 No.325

>>324
Next time you should read the entire post you're replying to. I've clearly responded to the part about being forced to assume identities. Nobody is forced to assume anything, if you choose to pretend to be someone you aren't it's your fault you're left communicating with people you don't like.

 No.326

>>325
>I've clearly responded to the part about being forced to assume identities
That never was part of the message, I'm doing fine, thank you, but many people don't. You could read only the first and last phrase before getting "pissed off".

>Is there a tomorrow for people who don't want to be lumped up in some premade identity package?

> I wonder how it would be possible to convince the minority who feels out of place and which is easily seduced by conspiracy theories that globalism is more their only weapon than it is a threat.

 No.327

>>326
>That never was part of the message
Then why would you write it in the middle of your post?
If you entire point was 2 sentences then why subject everyone to the rest of that nonsense?

And what makes you think you're right and not the folks getting into "conspiracy theories"? Why is globalism a threat? (Not that I have a strong stance on the matter, I just don't think you're right in assuming you're right)

 No.328

>>327
I just wanted to mention my own experience in order to bring some context, and I put it in the middle because what this is the part you actually jump when you tl;dr.

>what makes you think you're right and not the folks getting into "conspiracy theories"?

Am I supposed to really explain how trusting Russia Today and Infowars is tinfoil-tier?
>Why is globalism a threat?
It's not?
>globalism is more their only weapon than it is a threat

 No.329

>>328
>Am I supposed to really explain how trusting Russia Today and Infowars is tinfoil-tier?
So if mainstream news is wrong, and alternative news is wrong, who's right? You? Why? What makes you know better than someone else? Because you chose a different flavor of conspiracy? How are you different if you're asking how to manipulate people in a direction of your choice?

>seduced by conspiracy theories that globalism is more their only weapon than it is a threat.

You could phrase yourself better. Why it isn't a threat then? Who are you even fighting?

 No.330

>>329
>So if mainstream news is wrong, and alternative news is wrong, who's right? You?
You know, there could be like, a middle ground? Are you the kind of guy who were accusing Ken Bone and whoever didn't go voting for either Trump or Hillary to think they are "better than someone else"?

>You could phrase yourself better.


>…how it would be possible TO convince the minority WHO feels out of place and which is easily seduced by conspiracy theories THAT globalism…


>why isn't

Now that's nonsense. I'm not sure you know how making a point work.

I really feel like I'm wasting time here. I could totally rephrase the OP, but why would I do that? You obviously just enjoy playing rhetorics and I don't feel like I'm going to get anything worthwhile by playing your game any further.

You know, you could read the OP for further info instead of asking me to repeat it in some weird grandiose show. Or don't, do as you wish.

 No.331

>>330
>You know, there could be like, a middle ground?
That didn't answer my question. I don't care about could, I want to know right now, what's the middle ground. Show me a representation of the thing you deem to be middle ground.

Still waiting on these:
>What makes you know better than someone else? Because you chose a different flavor of conspiracy? How are you different if you're asking how to manipulate people in a direction of your choice?
Especially the last one.

I realize that this seems as if I'm hostile to you, but I'm trying to find a resolution here so that I'll either change my opinion, or you change yours. If this seems pointless to you, obviously, don't waste your time.

 No.332

>>331
I am not upholding any opinion. People who join all those screaming identity groups on the internet aren't cookie-cutter members. Don't you think this is strange that so-many "non-white" or "whyte" people are still /pol/tards? The feeling of being a free individual is not innate. People are consumed by paranoia that the State, capitalism/communism, or the secret enemy is here to cut their throat the second they lose their group and get isolated. Opinions don't matter: this is the unnatural unhealthiness I was talking about. After WW2, Huxley wrote:

>Such, then, was Hitler's opinion of humanity in the mass. It was a very low opinion. Was it also an incor­rect opinion? The tree is known by its fruits, and a theory of human nature which inspired the kind of techniques that proved so horribly effective must con­tain at least an element of truth. Virtue and intelli­gence belong to human beings as individuals freely associating with other individuals in small groups. So do sin and stupidity. But the subhuman mindlessness to which the demagogue makes his appeal, the moral imbecility on which he relies when he goads his vic­tims into action, are characteristic not of men and women as individuals, but of men and women in masses. Mindlessness and moral idiocy are not charac­teristically human attributes; they are symptoms of herd-poisoning. In all the world's higher religions, salvation and enlightenment are for individuals. The kingdom of heaven is within the mind of a person, not within the collective mindlessness of a crowd. Christ promised to be present where two or three are gath­ered together. He did not say anything about being present where thousands are intoxicating one another with herd-poison. Under the Nazis enormous numbers of people were compelled to spend an enormous amount of time marching in serried ranks from point A to point B and back again to point A. "This keeping of the whole population on the march seemed to be a senseless waste of time and energy. Only much later," adds Hermann Rauschning, "was there revealed in it a subtle intention based on a well-judged adjustment of ends and means. Marching diverts men's thoughts. Marching kills thought. Marching makes an end of individuality. Marching is the indispensable magic stroke performed in order to accustom the people to a mechanical, quasi-ritualistic activity until it becomes second nature."


>From his point of view and at the level where he had chosen to do his dreadful work, Hitler was perfectly correct in his estimate of human nature. To those of us who look at men and women as individuals rather than as members of crowds, or of regimented collec­tives, he seems hideously wrong. In an age of accelerat­ing over-population, of accelerating over-organization and ever more efficient means of mass communication, how can we preserve the integrity and reassert the value of the human individual? This is a question that can still be asked and perhaps effectively answered. A generation from now it may be too late to find an answer and perhaps impossible, in the stifling collec­tive climate of that future time, even to ask the ques­tion.


He was afraid we end up in a society flooded in so much noise we wouldn't be able to keep our individuality any more. My final question was, in this day and age, what kind of lifesaver could help those people who are crushed by internal contradictions to get back that freedom.
As for the middle ground, I could have stayed vague, but if I mentioned Ken Bone, it is because he is a breathing middle ground, and if he became a meme, it means he's not, by far, an oddity. And it is not because he didn't want to choose between the two mainstream and tinfoil choices that he believed he was worth more than others. Even the contrary: he was dubbed Mr. Normal. Mr. Normal, the norm, is not represented.

You should realize that I am not trying to feel superior to others or venting because I supposedly can't argue on the Internet. Even here, I am not trying to prove you any point. I just answered the questions you were asking by pure courtesy. But I think I wrote enough now and I do not wish to continue.

 No.333

>>332
Should've put that in the OP.
Thank you for putting up with me.

>My final question was, in this day and age, what kind of lifesaver could help those people who are crushed by internal contradictions to get back that freedom.

Well now you spooked me. I don't see an immediate problem, since there are multiple sides being represented, even though they aren't the norm, their difference of opinions evidently produces some kind of normal group. But these polar opposite sides might disappear, merge, or worse, one could overtake, so this is bad cultural design. If a radical side overtakes, I don't know if it'll be like a teenage sci-fi drama where the mary sues save the day, or eternal close minded torment.

I couldn't find much data about individualism over time, this isn't concrete evidence of decline but it's good enough for me, for now. It focuses on people looking at religion for purpose, but identity is just another flavor of that.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01478/full

There's a lot more thinking to do here. I don't even know if it's ethical to consider this a "problem". Or if it even fits my moral compass. I'm too tired right now. Again, thanks for putting up with my soykaf.

 No.334

>>333
>Should've put that in the OP
Yeah I wish I did that, I didn't know how to start this thread and now that I had the occasion to develop my thoughts in written form this OP looks like brewing soykaf.
In any case, thank you for your input.

 No.335

Globalism is a doctrine of opening up foreign markets and integrating them into a single, global economy. I don't really see how it could help anyone but transnational corporations.

 No.336

File: 1509660433235.png (Spoiler Image, 1.02 MB, 1500x1000, 37eb01428fda8ef6729694aed7….png)

>>332
If you want a way out you will have to understand the contradictions, what causes them, what is the history of their development and where are they going, otherwise you are just going to wander aimlessly hoping to randomly find the exit.

If you are lucky you might find that some of the work has been already done for you…

 No.353

>>335
It makes us need to support each other more, which is a good thing. But of course like anything else in this world, the reasoning behind it is because trans national corporations want it, but this doesn't really seem like a conspiracy that matters that much. You still have to look at the underlying power structures about WHY this is even a problem in the first place, of course to question the validity of capitalism over some tinfoil globalist jewish conspiracy on a chan might as well be illegal anymore, so I'll end it with that

 No.356

>What about the realization of being an individual in a connected global world?
Latin America is becoming the new place for this.
The global north/west is collapsing due to conflictual political interests, paranoia and following national security madness.
It seems like Latin America is wanting to become what Europe was in the 90s (emphasis on civil rights, freedom of movement, soft drugs decriminalization, etc., etc.)
also if you're not an anarchist you sound like you'd at least be interested in libertarian socialism, look into it

 No.357

>>356
Lol I thought I was doing spoilers.



[Return] [Go to top] [ Catalog ] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]